Vines v. Village of Flossmoor
2017 IL App (1st) 163339
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Fourteen-year-old Sellars Vines II fell 20 feet from a ventilation grate outside the Flossmoor Library and suffered serious injuries; his parents sued the Village of Flossmoor and the Flossmoor Library.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants on August 31, 2016; the court denied reconsideration and leave to file a third amended complaint on November 14, 2016.
- Notice of appeal was due December 14, 2016; the Vineses filed a notice of appeal on December 21, 2016 (late) and did not file an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(d) motion for leave to file a late notice within the 30-day grace period.
- The Library moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction after the Rule 303(d) deadline expired; the Vineses filed a “motion to amend” the late notice only after receiving the motion to dismiss.
- A different panel initially denied the motions to dismiss and granted the Vineses’ motion to amend, but this court reconsidered jurisdiction and concluded the Rule 303(d) deadline had passed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction when the notice of appeal was filed late and no timely Rule 303(d) motion for leave to file a late notice was filed | Vines: seek to amend the late notice; argued for substance over form and reliance on counsel’s inadvertent mistake (and urged extension of People v. Brown) | Defendants: late notice without timely Rule 303(d) motion deprives the court of jurisdiction; dismissal required | Court held no jurisdiction; appeal dismissed because Rule 303(d) motion was not filed within 30-day grace period |
| Whether Rule 303(d) requires the motion for leave to be filed simultaneously with or within 30 days after expiration of the notice deadline, and whether equitable relief (Brown) applies in civil cases | Vines: Brown (criminal-case precedent) should weigh against strict forfeiture and permit relief for counsel error | Defendants: Rule 303(d) is mandatory in civil cases; Brown does not apply; strict deadlines required for finality | Court held Rule 303(d) deadline is mandatory in civil appeals; Brown (criminal context) is inapplicable; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Barth, 103 Ill. 2d 536 (court must review jurisdiction independently)
- Secura Ins. Co. v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209 (timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Bank of Herrin v. Peoples Bank of Marion, 105 Ill. 2d 305 (Rule 303(d) relief should be liberally exercised when timely filed within the 30-day grace period)
- Gaynor v. Walsh, 219 Ill. App. 3d 996 (no jurisdiction where Rule 303(d) window expired)
- La Grange Mem. Hosp. v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 317 Ill. App. 3d 863 (Rule 303(d) motion filed within grace period can cure a late notice)
- People v. Brown, 54 Ill. 2d 25 (criminal-case precedent excusing procedural defaults not extended to civil appeals)